103 réponses à ce sujet

[TheGreyGhost119]

I was mostly a paragon in ME1, except when dealing with Cerberus or big time criminals (where I either outright killed them or bullied them into giving up). I let the Council die at the end, but only by picking "Focus on Sovereign" because I believed that was the right thing to do. (The Council pretty much tells you "the mission has to come first" in every encounter with them, so I figured they would understand)



It sucks that everyone seems to hate me in ME2, but that is the nature of being a renegade. You do what you feel has to be done regardless of the consequences. It isn't like small time renegade options cause everyone to hate you, so if everyone loved you for letting the council die it would feel far worse I think.

[thethain]

One negative impact is very early. Leave a buddy to help Garrus and you get to go around closing doors with one wingman. This is a **** on hardcore difficulty.



Choosing the paragon path also in leaving the "innocent" technician alive will make the gunship more powerful (Haven't actually tried this, it might even kill garrus).



Being nice on Zaed's mission means no loyalty from him.



On Tali's rescue mission telling her last ranger to save himself removes some friendly rocketfire.



I do agree that choosing options should really have a little more oomph in the game. Sacrificing isn't really sacrificing if you lose nothing. And saying "Anything for victory" is actually just being an ass if it doesn't help you.



Short version: There should be situations in which helping people might make allies, or going renegade might increase your personal power.

[Taritu]

holidayc wrote...

Taritu wrote...

Should be negatives from certain Renegade decisions too, as far as that goes.

You kidding? Try doing some renegade activities then. In the first game, you can miss out on 2 squad members, close a sh*t ton of side quests, and miss out on all of the romances, if you decide to go full renegade.

If you made the renegade decision not to save the council, everyone hates you. If you play full renegade you miss out on getting full loyalty in some quests. If you decide to save the collector's base TIM practically beats you over the head with the information that hes going to use this for more than just fighting the reapers.

Renegade is all about consequences, paragon is not.

I thought we were talking about game 2?  Renegade in game 2 is not the same as Renegade in game 1.  Renegade in game 1 was "complete douche" most of the time.  In game 2 it is usually "ruthless".

For that matter, in game 2, Paragon is a lot more hardass than it was in game 1.  And going paragon can lose you Zaeed's loyalty, as far as that goes.

As for destroying the base, there should be consequences either way -- keep it and Cerberus uses it in ways you bloody well won't like.  They are a bunch of terrorists, and we all know it.  Don't keep it and you don't get a lot of very useful information and that should bite you on the butt in ME3, I agree.  Either way should be a problem in ME3.

But a lot of these things are shoehorns and would never happen in a freeform universe.  I have the IFF information for the Omega 3 relay, after all.  Cerberus isn't powerful enough to stop a council or alliance warfleet.  I'd just give the information to Anderson, and get a fleet out there.  Screw Cerberus, I only worked with them due to circumstances.  I haven't forgotten Kahoku or any of their other crimes. Given a chance I'd put a bullet in Tim's head, and if Miranda got in my way, she'd get the same treatment.  (And that's ME2 paragon.)

[D00GS729]

Here's a question, has just walking around, being a huge douche to everyone you see, indiscriminately punching people in the face and stealing candy from babies really gotten anyone anywhere?



All jokes aside, in pretty much all games that I've played where your morality functions as a tangible gameplay mechanic, most of the time, if there is a reward for being "good", there is a just as tangible a reward for being "evil" as well, even if it does have a bit of a dirty feeling about it. In some cases, there is a reward for being a huge jerk to everyone, while playing it nice gets you a pat on the back and an insincere smile. (i.e. Fable.)



Also, I don't think the Dragon Age correlation counts, because the final choice in the game is literally High Road: DEATH and everyone is sad, with no morally ambiguous god-baby (but you're still dead) and Low Road: I'm alive, everyone is very happy for me, and I either let my friend die, or there is a morally ambiguous god-baby running around.



In Mass Effect, the morality system functions as "ends don't justify the means" and "ends justify the means. No seriously, I really don't care how I do something, as long as it's done, who really cares? Also, I'm a bad ass, incidentally."

[The_mango55]

Default137 wrote...

Lunarionsilver wrote...

Playing full Paradon or full Renegade has never struct me as something to do. I base my decisions on how my character would. Sometiems those choices are 'Paragon' and sometimes they are 'Regegade'. Playing either or just isn't realistic I'd say.
That said, I think you used poor examples from both those games. I find that usually the decisions are more in tones of grey.
For example: In DAO you can choose the Dark Pact, which would be the 'wrong' choice, possibly have a happy ending, and get screwed when it comes into frution. Or you could deny the Pact, possibly have a craptastic ending, but at least know it wouldn't come back to bite you.

Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 are very similar. How do you know those idealist choices won't ruin you? Reprogram the Geth? Could turn on you instead of helping defeat the Reapers. Cure the Krogan? Could help fight the Reapers, or perhaps form a Horde and nother Rebellion, costing thousands of lives. Quarrians going to war? Maybe they would win and defeat the bulk of the Geth who would have joined the Reapers, or maybe they would have lost, thus destroying the largest fleet in the galaxy.

The 'good' choices in a game don't always have happy endings.

My basis right now is on Biowares track record, not only from previous games, but also from ME1 to ME2.

In ME1, if you save the Council, you did so at the cost of oh lets say, 7 million human lives, you also practicially destroyed one of humanities main fleets, and it would probably take anywhere from 5-6 years to fix all that up, all for the sake of saving 4 people. That never came back, and judging by how Bioware handled its previous games, it never will, that loss of life and loss of a fleet at most will get a minor mention in ME3, but they'll have magically fixed any potentiol consequence it might have had, because apparently being good is more important then realistic scenarios.

And thats kind of what I'm getting at here, there is no consequence for being good in Bioware games, you just threw away an entire fleet for no reason? Aww, don't worry, you won't have to see how the weakened Alliance fleet will be unable to protect its border colonies during the full out Reaper attack, and billons will die because of your idealism, because in your perfect Paragon world, bad things don't happen!

Where the hell did you get 7 million human lives?

He says in the interview with the reporter that something like 3,000 human lives were lost in the battle of the citadel. The ship they saved, the Destiny Ascension, had a crew of 10,000.

[Haasth]

I was just thinking this... well like an hour ago. When I passed Kel'Reagan again and made sure he didn't attack the Colossus... "They should have so let him die due to incoming Geth reinforcements sneaking in from behind and taking out Kel'Reagan while you're busy killing the Colossus."

[Jigero]

But Paragon isn't idealistic it's just sensible, only on minor political thing does it feel idealistic. Every major paragon decision felt very sensible. If anything I feel like renegade was way to idealistic.

[JamieCOTC]

GnusmasTHX wrote...

I don't.

It's a game. I want to be rewarded good things for being the 'good guy'. If I wanted to get screwed over just for doing something nice; I'd go outside.

Best quote on gaming ... EVER.

[Missouri Tigers]

I hope that in ME3 all the people that chose to destroy the base get overwhelmed and the universe ends because we aren't able to stop the Reapers.  

[Kerberus88]

77boy84 wrote...

Actually, it sounded like some of the paragon choices in ME2 would end up biting people in the ass in ME3.

The Alliance is weakened, there's a possibility of the geth-reaper virus coming back, and the collector station could have given tons of info about reapers and how to defeat them.

This.

It states in the game that there may be PTSD for the geth if they rewrite the virus. This will bite paragon in the ass in ME3.

If you saved the council then human lives were lost, but everyone recognizes this and treats humans with more respect. That is the trade-off. If you let them die then its an all human council and the alien races resent humans. Trade-off.

The collector station is an allusion to the concentration camps of WWII. There were marvelous break-throughs in science and medicine, but at the price of torture and murder. All the findings were scrapped because it wasn't worth the price. Doing the good thing doesn't always help, that is why it is considered the harder path.

In the behind the scenes dvd that came with the Collector's edition some of the devs said that paragon choices will have neg effects in ME3. So the path of good will be harder in ME3 and the path of renegade will be easier.


Edit: Jacob makes it clear in the game " Doing a good deed is like pissing yourself in dark pants; it gives you a warm feeling, but no one notices."

Modifié par Kerberus88, 04 février 2010 - 01:16 .

[holidayc]

Jigero wrote...

But Paragon isn't idealistic it's just sensible, only on minor political thing does it feel idealistic. Every major paragon decision felt very sensible. If anything I feel like renegade was way to idealistic.

Haha, what?? Did we even play the same game?

Paragon has you sparing and letting criminals run free, stopping the killing of an insectoid race that almost whiped out life in the galaxy JUST because "its the right thing to do", keeping a cure to the genophage, reprogramming the geth, saving civilians and instead of helping your squadmate because it was the right thing to do(when realistically strenghtening yourself against the reapers would potentially save far more lives)

Renegade does border on douche at times but MOST if not all of the time, it represents the drastic but logical Jack Bauer 'esque decision. Paragon often revolves around what feels like the 'right thing to do' which is great, but really doesn't make any decisions singularily difficult, theres a comfort in going all blue in any Bioware game; you know it isn't going to f*** you over.

[D00GS729]

Missouri Tigers wrote...

I hope that in ME3 all the people that chose to destroy the base get overwhelmed and the universe ends because we aren't able to stop the Reapers.  

and then, I better get my pony......

[Axeface]

Very good point and this crossed my mind the other day.
However I havent played renegade so I dont know how things work out if you choose the 'bad' options. There should be more implications, I hope ME3 will. After all, "Killing thousands to save millions" does have factual weight.

However, I think that in ME3 we may see ramifications for our 'good' actions. One example would be....

[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[END GAME SPOILER]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
Destroying the human reaper larvae at the end. I chose this, but surely this 'good' action will have DIRE consequences in the end.
Also, the way you handle the quarians may also have many consequences.




We will see.

Modifié par Axeface, 04 février 2010 - 01:22 .

[AtreiyaN7]

To be fair to Alistair - he's not an idiot. He just lacks confidence, and you're neglecting to mention that if Alistair is hardened, he can become a very good king. What happens in that particular epilogue is that he puts forth a serious effort and studies to become a decent king. This isn't something he wants to do - he'd be happier as a Grey Warden, BUT Arl Eamon believes that it's necessary to have someone with actual Theirin blood on the throne to keep Ferelden unified after the disastrous civil war Loghain started (and because he can wangle more support at the Landsmeet possibly). Here are a few more accurate examples of negative consequences for "paragon" decisions in DA:O

1) Choosing Harrowmont and destroying the Anvil of the Void (ostensibly BOTH "paragon" actions), will lead to ruin/stagnation for the dwarven kingdom.
2) If you take the "paragon" course and refuse Morrigan's deal, then one of the Wardens dies (and if you romanced Alistair, he'll take the hit for you).
3) This one isn't so much serious as it is amusing: give the beggars in the Alienage gold...and you get more beggars asking for gold - no reward, no nothing.
4) Romance Alistair as a non-human and put him forth as king...and he will dump you if you DON'T harden him (ie. making him a little tougher/more cynical after the Goldanna quest).

In DA:O I thought they did a decent enough job of giving you morally ambiguous decisions to make and showing that trying to do the "right" thing doesn't always work out or that it doesn't always provide you with a tangible reward. It can result in fairly wrenching consequences (vis a vis some of my fellow female gamers who were ticked off at the surprise-dumping by Alistair). In ME2 once incident stands out for me - if you do the "paragon" action with Elnora and let her go, you find out that she IS in fact the murderer you were looking for. So, oops - you let a murderer go.

I think you're ignoring certain plot points in DA:O/ME2. There can be repercussions, and being a "paragon" doesn't always work out for the best. In fact, who knows, blowing up the Collector base if you indulge your paragon side could have dire consequences in ME3. I did it, and I'll take the risk. *shrug* Of course, the first time out TIM convinced me that I should save it so I did, even though I was a Paragon. I was a little concerned about his behavior afterwards however (his Cerberus speech and the "human dominance" thing were not a good sign ).

Modifié par AtreiyaN7, 04 février 2010 - 01:22 .

[Eumerin]

Kerberus88 wrote...

If you saved the council then human lives were lost, but everyone recognizes this and treats humans with more respect. That is the trade-off. If you let them die then its an all human council and the alien races resent humans. Trade-off.

Not entirely.  For instance, the Volus short-seller on Illium claims that he's only doing what he's doing to make a buck.  But then he lets out an exclamation that suggests that he actively hopes that humanity is forced to abandon its colonization (and not just so that he can make a buck short-selling).

And then there's the Turian politician that you have to shadow in Thane's loyalty mission.  His entire political platform basically boils down to, "It's not fair that humans are on the council just because they won one lousy space battle."  And a lot of the people that he talks to seem to agree with him...

I get the feeling that there's still a lot of anti-human bigotry and resentment present even after saving the council.

[Khavos]

Jigero wrote...

But Paragon isn't idealistic it's just sensible, only on minor political thing does it feel idealistic. Every major paragon decision felt very sensible. If anything I feel like renegade was way to idealistic.

No, I don't think that's true.  Unless you really would let someone, for example, pull a gun on you while you were fighting your way through a hostile mercenary base simply because they told you that they're not really all bad.

Some Paragon options are sensible.  Some Renegade options are sensible.  Bear in mind that Shep's a military operative with an extraordinarily important mission on his hands and a lot of jackasses getting in his way, most of whom really do deserve, at the least, a good kneecapping. 

[Maria Caliban]

Taritu wrote...

Should be negatives from certain Renegade decisions too, as far as that goes. They aren't big on consequences overall.

Seriously. I love it how people call for negative consequences to paragon actions, but freak out if you suggest that the anti-social, genocidal bullying that Renegade Sheps enjoy might have any negatives.

If you want realistic consequences then ask for them for BOTH ethincal paths.

[ReubenLiew]

I let a murderer go because I thought she was serious about not wanting to be part of the Eclipse band, turns out she's nothing but a cold blooded murderer and a damn good liar.

I reloaded the entire section to kill her, the conniving little ****.

So yes, there are repurcussions to being a Paragon.

[Looy]

I don't known what the OP is talking about, renegade choices often kill enemies and make life easier, the only advantage of being a paragon is your clean conscience.

[Khavos]

The primary problem with Paragon/Renegade, by the way, is the metagame. You know that, provided you have enough points in either, you can get the outcome you want. If someone has information Shep needs, then sure, Renegade Shep can beat it out of him, and we all know it will work. But we also know that Paragon Shep will be able to say something idealistic, make the guy see the error of his ways, and not only provide the information, but agree to reform his wicked ways and become a paragon of society himself.



Both ways will work regardless of how ridiculous it might seem, primarily because Paragon/Renegade is just an illusion of choice. The plot's going to go where it's going to go unless you quit the game. Minor things along the way will be a little different, but that's it. Council alive in ME1? You have no Council assistance in ME2. Council dead in ME1? You have no Council assistance in ME2. It'll be the exact same in ME3 with the decisions made in ME2.

[Mr.Skar]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Taritu wrote...

Should be negatives from certain Renegade decisions too, as far as that goes. They aren't big on consequences overall.

Seriously. I love it how people call for negative consequences to paragon actions, but freak out if you suggest that the anti-social, genocidal bullying that Renegade Sheps enjoy might have any negatives.

If you want realistic consequences then ask for them for BOTH ethincal paths.

I agree. If there are gonna be dire consequences for our decisions come ME3, both sides better have them.

[serjwolf]

pacer90 wrote...

Paragon's lose the reaper tech inside the collector's base.

They also have the turian councillor to deal with.

Who is better off again?

this

[Childounet]

Hello there,



Just want to point out I unlinkely find this game making you have to get both renegade and parangon points to progress is really nice.



All is not black and white, and finally a game offer this. I find that really great. ME2 is definately the best adventure game I played since many years.



I am impatiently waiting for the last episode now...

[Khavos]

Mr.Skar wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Taritu wrote...

Should be negatives from certain Renegade decisions too, as far as that goes. They aren't big on consequences overall.

Seriously. I love it how people call for negative consequences to paragon actions, but freak out if you suggest that the anti-social, genocidal bullying that Renegade Sheps enjoy might have any negatives.

If you want realistic consequences then ask for them for BOTH ethincal paths.

I agree. If there are gonna be dire consequences for our decisions come ME3, both sides better have them.

There won't be.  There will be conversational and background environmental consequences, just like in ME2. 

[Argent Csero]

Khavos wrote...

The primary problem with Paragon/Renegade, by the way, is the metagame. You know that, provided you have enough points in either, you can get the outcome you want. If someone has information Shep needs, then sure, Renegade Shep can beat it out of him, and we all know it will work. But we also know that Paragon Shep will be able to say something idealistic, make the guy see the error of his ways, and not only provide the information, but agree to reform his wicked ways and become a paragon of society himself.

Both ways will work regardless of how ridiculous it might seem, primarily because Paragon/Renegade is just an illusion of choice. The plot's going to go where it's going to go unless you quit the game. Minor things along the way will be a little different, but that's it. Council alive in ME1? You have no Council assistance in ME2. Council dead in ME1? You have no Council assistance in ME2. It'll be the exact same in ME3 with the decisions made in ME2.

You're right. Now that I think about it, plot wise, we really have NO control, just the illusion that we have control. Thanks. That's what was bothering me about the plot, but I couldn't put my finger on it.